Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed. (*)(*)

14. No SMS or Social Media Content (including Reddit)

This includes direct linking to reddit threads, reddit comments, other subreddits, facebook profiles, twitter profiles, tweets, embedded tweets, and screenshots of the above, including text messages, omegle, snapchat, instagram and others. This also includes any other sites that may be considered social network sites. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Serial reposters may be filtered

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

Really kinda hoping they do 2 takes for every scene in Batman Vs Superman where the first one Affleck says it normal and the second one he says it with his Boston accent. Then they release a 3 disc Blu-Ray with the Bahtmahn cut on the 2nd disc.

It really bothers me when people use this argument. Yes, reddit isn't a single entity, but we are talking about something that was upvoted to the top of reddit. We are talking about the majority opinion, not a single user. When the majority opinion seemingly shifts, it's OK to point it out.

The fact that you've seen this response enough to become annoyed with it just demonstrates that the type of comment it's a response to is far too ubiquitous in my opinion. A politician gets caught doing something nasty and somebody says " But reddit told me his farts smelled like cherries!" Reddit is a fluid community with changing opinions. That shouldn't be surprising.

I'm just saying that the comment "reddit isn't a single, rigid entity" is a straw-man argument, because nobody was claiming that in the first place. The original comment was talking about popular opinion, which actually implies that we aren't talking about a single entity.

To me, "Reddit isn't a single entity" is just such a non-contributing addition to any argument that it serves no other purpose than shutting down discussion.

Nolan's Batman is retired. From what I gather this is kinda a half-reboot half-sequel. Like when they made The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton. They kinda make references to the previous film, but at the same time establish pretty clearly that this is a whole new universe.

The only thing I've heard in direct relation to that subject is Ben noting how their Batman will honor traditions of old, but creating a new path. Which is just a sly way of saying "this is our thing, but it will be familiar enough for fans".

I highly doubt any callbacks will be made to the Nolan trilogy, vague or otherwise. Not only is that inviting direct comparisons, for which they are in an uphill battle already, but it doesn't benefit this story moving forward. Bale's Batman fought for a whopping 3 years, and spent more time regretting/rejecting Batman altogether. Not at all complementing to this new iteration which has been officially described as a world-weary veteran.

The fact that Nolan was a producer on Man of Steel, they use the Wayne logo from Nolan's films on the Wayne satellite in Man of Steel, and that they're going with an older Batman. Not to say it'll directly reference the Nolan trilogy or follow the exact same canon, but like the 2008 Hulk film, it'll be it's own thing but "be familiar enough for the fans." as you quoted.

Snyder already clarified the easter egg was more of a nod to Nolan (as gratitude for helping him) than it is an indication of their future Bruce Wayne. Also Nolan has been off this new universe ever since MOS started filming. He didn't even do any heavy lifting with the first film (that was all Goyer). He gets an executive producer credit for BvS, and in Hollywood speak that's basically just a free paycheck.

Also the older Batman isn't exclusive to Nolan's trilogy. Every single live-action Batman left their run in their late 30s. It's nothing unique at all. I'd say there's an even lesser connection due to the fact Bale's Bruce effectively retired. Short of an outright death, that's as much of a closed chapter as a story can get. At least the other Batman "lived to fight another day".

Agreed. I'm glad that this new incarnation has nothing to do with Nolan's Batman. I enjoyed the first 2 Nolan bats films, but the world they created would not meld very well with the world that Snyder and Goyer created in Man of Steel. Nolan's films were all about realism and they worked well when contained in those guidelines. But think of how un-epic some of the scenes from the Nolan films would become when Superman is standing there and can do it in seconds :/

Considering Gotham was in complete lockdown for a month because of one bomb, a bomb that superman could just fly into space and explode in a minute without anyone even noticing. I would definitely agree with you. Or maybe Superman just hates Gotham =/

I felt he nailed the role completely. For me, he is to Hulk as RDJ is to Iron Man. They both seem to so completely fit the characters they portray it is difficult to imagine anyone else doing it better.

I think people didn't know what to make of it. It came out around the time that X-Men and Spider-Man were huge, and people were kind of expecting a different movie.

The bottom line is that Bana's Banner isn't a badass. He's basically a gentle and decent guy who was dealt a shit hand in terms of a psychotic father, and carries around a lot of fear and rage because of it. The only time he's effective is when he transforms into the Hulk. I think that basically didn't sit right with the audience: they've been taught to expect that the protagonist will always be at least a little badass.

Compare Norton's Banner in The Incredible Hulk: he knows martial arts and effortlessly takes charge when stuff goes wrong (he shuts down an entire factory line without anyone batting an eyelash). The hot Brazilian chick likes him. He's kind of cool even before we see him as the Hulk.

Ruffalo's Banner is similarly self-assured: he trades barbs with Black Widow and provokes her into drawing her weapon before being all like 'lol j/k'.

Eric Bana's portrayal strikes a chord with me because he's so vulnerable, and so committed to the idea of never hurting anyone that he refuses to defend himself from Talbot and allows himself to be beaten to a pulp rather than transform. Earlier in the movie he'd been manipulated into transforming and Talbot had been horribly injured as a result. Now he's refusing to be a tool, even if it kills him. THAT's what was badass about him. But it's a style of badass that I think goes unappreciated

I think the Norton/Ruffalo banner characters were more self assured because they had the hulks powers for a quite a while, that's probably why he provoked black widow because there isn't shit she could do if he transformed. Whereas the Bana bruce banner was just coming to grips with his powers and fears and resents them because he doesn't understand them yet.

Sure, and I don't have any beef with what Norton and Ruffalo brought to the role.

I do think that the writers of The Avengers kind of screwed up when they made it clear that Banner can't be hurt because if shot he would just instantaneously become the Hulk. It was at that point that all the tension in the scene between Banner and Black Widow disappeared. "Oh, Bruce can't be hurt? Shit I'll just stop caring then".

At that point, Bruce provoking Black Widow is actually manipulative. He knows he's in no danger, so it feels like he just wants to see how she'll react - whether he can puncture her veneer of confidence and wrest control of the conversation away from her. It's another example of how Banner is played as a badass - that he can dominate someone who is a professional scary person (super spy).

(Of course, you might argue that Black Widow deliberately gave Banner the control she knew he wanted, as part of her larger goal of getting him to go with her. And you know, that's not such a bad argument given that Black Widow's signature move in The Avengers is to convince people that they have her right where they want her.)

Like I said before, I'm not dissing Ruffalo's work and he delivered exactly what the script and I think the audience wanted. I just find it interesting to compare the portrayals and why some are held up as better than others.

It was at that point that all the tension in the scene between Banner and Black Widow disappeared.

I'm pretty sure that was the purpose. The point of Banner and Hulk has always been how scary he is, and how scared the government is of him. Hell, in the comics the Avengers were originally formed to stop a Hulk rampage.

If all it took was a gunshot, he'd be dead already. It also provides a foundation for why Widow was so shaken up by Hulk on the helicarrier. This is one enemy that she can't control or defeat.

If you read the comics, Bruce Banner's been portrayed as both assertive like Ruffalo's Banner and calm and timid like Bana's. Ultimately, the best stories with Banner interactions have been when he's assertive. Bana's Banner isn't an interesting Banner. You can size him up from the get-go and his relationship to Hulk is black and white.

Ruffalo's Banner is more similar to the current comics Banner and I love it. Having Banner be more resourceful and competent ultimately leads to more interesting dynamics and story. He's more interesting, and there's more reason to have Banner around instead of Hulk. If he's this flatter, more archetypal character then we'll find ourselves just waiting for the next Hulk scene.

I've seen that film dozens of times and my opinions on it are fluid, but that is the effect of years and looking back from what we've seen with Avengers can change a previous opinion, but some facts of the film hold true.

First of all, Hulk was a very very cerebral film, it asked a lot of people, asked them to sit up and pay attention as they spent so much time delving into the origin in detail. This didn't sit well with the majority of the audience who just wanted HULK SMASH.

The second problem I see is that Hulk is played out as a very tragic figure. The film is something of a psychoanalysis of a monster. He wasn't a HULK SMASH kind of Hulk, rather he was a HULK FEELS. A lot of time was given over to showing that Hulk wasn't inherently bad, he was just misunderstood and mistreated and reacted in the only way he could. This also tied in well with the depth of detail given in the origin story, it is explained the Hulk is a manifestation of emotion and that it shows itself as uncontrollable rage. This why Hulk keeps getting bigger and bigger as he got angrier, is was a visual metaphor for his increasing rage and power. A lot of people didn't like that either, complaining that Hulk shouldn't have been 10 or 12 ft tall. I get the complaints, but when you start trying to make a deep, intelligent drama about a raging monster, there are going to be some cinematic decisions made that reinterpret the raw material in some way.

What people tend to overlook is that Ang Lee did an incredible job of taking this raging monster superhero which is perfectly set up for an action movie the likes of which Michael Bay would get a raging semi for, and producing a very thoughtful drama, an excellent character study. It often feels more like dissertation on a character produced as a film.

What Ang created WAS excellent in many ways. It's just not what people wanted from the Hulk and, unfortunately, it did have some issues.

1)His father turning into Absorbing Man felt more like a tacked on afterthought to give Hulk a real 'bossfight', which somewhat undermined what I thought was a very good, understated scrap between Hulk and a character who can change into any material.

2)The pacing was a little bit off, asking people to wait a full 45 minutes or so before the first showings of Hulk was a lot. I know other origin stories have done the same, but here Hulk is a different being to Banner whereas in Batman Begins for example, we know that Bruce Wayne is still Batman and he's learning and training those necessary skills becoming stronger and more badass as he goes along. Here though, Banner just mopes around a lot and we see absolutely no quantifiable progress on his state towards Hulk until BAM, he gets his Gamma shot and changes into Hulk shortly after. I personally liked the first 45 minutes, but for a wider audience, it needed to be trimmed by a good 20 minutes or so.

3)His colour. It's a very weird shade of green. It shouldn't matter too much, but at times it's almost effervescent and it is in complete contrast to the tone of the film and the mood of the character. I would have expected a much darker green to suit the tone, or for them to have changed the hew depending on Hulks level of anger, lighter when he is calm, bolder when he is angrier. Nothing like that though, just a fluorescent green Hulk.

There are some other issues as well, people like to bitch about the mutant poodle, but that doesn't bother me, it made some sense in the context. Sometimes though it's enough when a bunch of little niggles are tied up with some larger complaints that people start to overlook the good.

I honestly think that, in time, history will show Ang Lees Hulk to be a much better film than it is given credit for, once people have enough Hulk films to sate their need for SMASH, they can then sit back and watch this and perhaps appreciate a very unique approach to this character.

His father turning into Absorbing Man felt more like a tacked on afterthought to give Hulk a real 'bossfight', which somewhat undermined what I thought was a very good, understated scrap between Hulk and a character who can change into any material.

I remember Ang Lee semi-jokingly referring to David Banner as 'The Partaker' because of his line 'I partake of the essences of all things'. It's not a bad name, given that Banner Sr is a taker - he really wants Bruce's powers.

Ultimately David Banner's real superpower is that he's Bruce's father. That's what makes him such a great villain :)

It just wasn't entertaining to me. You wait forever for anything to happen, and then you get hulk poodles in the trees shot so dark that you can't see what's going on. The ending got a little better, but then quickly got really weird. I just didn't find it fun to watch. My humble opinion.

Edit; I gladly admit that fighting the tanks in the desert was the shit.

They're not random they're both Kevin Smith movies (Mallrats and Clerks.) I do concede that at least Affleck is actually in Mallrats and as far as I'm aware he's not actually anywhere in Clerks. He does have a brief cameo in Clerks 2 though.

You know what.. It's insane that people write off Ben before they see him as Batman. He at least looks the part. I could not imagine the person in that picture as Bruce freakin' Wayne without seeing the movie. No way.

Keep in mind that that picture is when Bruce is sort of a hermit and he isnt very healthy. It would not surprise me if Bale even lost weight for these scenes considering the outrageous things he's done to his body to take on a role in the past. When his face is fuller and he looks bigger I think he's just as plausible to look like a Batman actor than Affleck.

Mali Finn, the same casting director as The Matrix, Green Mile and Terminator 2. I'd say the qualifies her as a professional. With a score of 5.4 however, I don't think you can blame Batman Forever on the casting director.

Really. George Clooney was the best casting decision they made for Batman. He could play a cool and serious Batman, and he can be an affable wealthy playboy Bruce Wayne (he wouldn't even have to even act for that). But the direction they took Batman was so shit that it didn't matter that he was actually perfect for the part.

Not all casting directors (or movie directors, for that matter) are cut from the same cloth. Some have made huge mistakes that have ultimately hurt the final product. Your appeal to authority isn't an appropriate counter argument.

I personally don't even mind Affleck as Batman, but I'm quite annoyed by the suit and the beard.

I think the real reason to be worried about is not Ben, but Zack Snyder. People are excited about this movie, but they forget that Man of Steel had a lot of issues. Sure, it'll be cool to see Supes and Bats together, but still... Zack Snyder.

As a Bostonian, this needs to be cleared up. He doesn't have an accent, he grew up in Cambridge (right next to Boston), so he might've had one at one point but not anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmOmqy6tEC0

The people who are against Affleck aren't aware of him doing anything after Gigli. They don't know about Argo or The Town, they think Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting writing Good Will Hunting, forgot how great he was in the View Askewniverse, and think Daredevil was his fault.

If the movie turns out as crappy as man of steel it doesn't matter if Ben acts well or not. That was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, the religious references were so thick I felt like I was watching right wing propaganda.

This whole endeveur stands or falls much less on Batman following the trilogy and much more on superman not being total shit.